![]() ![]() ![]() Instead of taking Tolstoy’s comments in the Second Epilogue about God, freedom, and history seriously, to see whether his artistic creation coincides with his philosophical project, critics either have attacked Tolstoy’s arguments in the Second Epilogue or have provided a condensing rationalization of it.īut from the drafts of the novel, it is clear that Tolstoy understood the Second Epilogue as the crucial principle to the organization of his work: “What I have expressed in the epilogue of the novel, without quotations and references, is not the momentary fancy of my mind but the inevitable conclusions of seven years of work which I had to do” (PSS 15:238). Practically all critics of War and Peace have interpreted the Second Epilogue as an aberration in the work that distracts from the merits of the novel. ![]() Other critics have claimed an organizational principle does exist in the novel-whether certain characters or specific literary techniques-but agree with their colleagues that the Second Epilogue mars Tolstoy’s masterpiece. Some have found it troublesome for its lack of structure, and especially point to the Second Preface which outlines a philosophy of history that distracts from the novel’s artistic achievements. Although nearly all have admired Tolstoy’s War and Peace since its publication, critics have been divided over whether the novel has an organizational principle. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |